Rundle: the education puppet show, with Labor scared in the wings

Share

The bloke in charge of the country’s education is a sinister little meat-puppet, a demented pouting Pinocchio, whose real cause has nothing to do with real politics but is driven by his demented, one-dimensional self-righteousness …

I am speaking of course of Michael Gove, the British Education Secretary, an aggressive midget Tory, a former child TV star who has never lost the look of one, and who has been pushing hard on defining the current UK high school curriculum as a left-wing conspiracy. For Gove, it’s World War I that has been dismissed as “meaningless slaughter” by Lefties — and y’know, most of those who were actually there — whereas it was, in his opinion, a war for “liberal civilisation” against a rapacious German horde who wanted to take away a Briton’s right to his own country — and to India’s, East Africa’s and Malaysia’s, as well.

Sound familiar? Gove has advanced the cause of free schools and tilting school funding back (further) to the rich. Sound familiar? Gove has adopted horn-rimmed spectacles in a bid to look like he runs his country’s schools, rather than attending one. Sound familiar?

Yes, meat-puppet Gove has an eerie shadow puppet in Christopher Pyne, who seems to be following his moves, feint by feint. Neither are substantial figures, but Gove at least has content, starting as a post-9/11 hysteric — with a “death of the West” book called Celsius 7/7 — and progressing to championing the idea that UK schools will be improved by the imposition of rigid curricula content. He is a particular champion of rote-learning in history, having produced a much-criticised Britocentric draft list of essential dates that appeared to suggest that, when anything did happen east of Dover, it was nothing at all, unless it was the Brits extending civilisation. Much of this proved counter-productive. As with John Howard’s meddling in curriculum design right up to the 2007 election, the end-product was judged unteachable, even by right-wing educationists. And for most people, who had no problem with the curriculum as was — insofar as they can understand it at all — it seemed part of the needless chaos the Con-Dem government specialised in.

Pyne’s intervention has the same ham-fisted quality. Assailing the current curriculum, instituted by Labor, he has ridiculed it, arguing that it tries to define the year 1-10 curriculum through three areas: indigenous Australia, sustainability and Asia — and that the later Australian history years are slanted in a Leftist direction. Neither do anything of the sort. The year 1-10 curriculum is organised in the usual subjects and with the usual goals — literacy, numeracy, etc — with the three focus areas as an add-on. Rather lamely, they make the obvious point that these will have less relevance to some areas than to others, i.e. year 2 adding and subtracting, for example. The later years suggest a range of topic areas in history that have a certain degree of loading to them — the main theme driving modern history is “a better world”, though it has a question mark — but ones that cover all aspects of the modern world, and one that any competent teacher would teach as a series of questions.

Thus, a solid curriculum with a degree of progressivist asininity about it. But that is not good enough for Pyne, who is employing well-known cultural hysteric Kevin Donnelly to turn the thing into a prescriptive model, based on the idea that Judeo-Christian civilisation is not only Australia’s cultural base, but is superior to others. So this is a retread of a retread, stretching through Gove back to Howard, which is what gives it something of a tired air. The days when you could drum an ideology into kids’ heads in the classroom is long gone. When all high school kids have the world in their grasp through the tablets they’re doing their homework on, the culture has inherently relativised — because they can compare everything to everything else.

But the whole process has as rote a feel as the lesson plans they would like to impose. As does the roll-out of Cory Bernardi’s book, The Conservative Revolution, trying to plant the cross in the sand of one of the most irreligious societies on earth. There is no sense here, nor is there much in the UK, of a concerted cultural-political program, just as there is little sense of a program overall. Both haphazard programs indicate the ideological weakness of the Right at this time. The neo-con formula — state cultural control over a free-market society — doesn’t work any more, the former element now replaced by authoritarian state control. Such moves — everything from internet firewalls to anti-assembly laws applied to “anti-social elements” — not only spark outright protest, but give the lie to the idea that the Right is the party of freedom, small government, or even orderly social management.

“Labor has so denuded itself of a bigger picture that it talks about means to ends … and calls them values, mistaking them for ends in themselves.”

Yet it prospers to a degree, especially now, in Australia, because Labor has left a vacuum where an alternative should be. Perhaps that is part of a cunning plan, but it looks more like pure absence of any idea about what Labor should be. More worryingly, there is no sign that Labor has any interest in thinking through what it could or should be offering the Australian people in the years ahead, what its vision of a better Australia is. As the government is stuffed to the gills with “free” marketeers, with the PM’s staff including a former Rio Tinto exec and a Toyota marketing guru, one suspects that sections of Labor don’t have a huge problem with much of what is on Abbott’s agenda and would rather like him to get on with it, let 2016 go to the keeper, and hope to get back in ’19.

Labor should by now be pioneering a large-scale project on how its founding values can be translated to current social life, and which of them should change in relation to new social aims. But there appears to be no real interchange between the party and an intellectual hinterland. Labor has so denuded itself of a bigger picture that it talks about means to ends — jobs, better schooling, etc — and calls them values, mistaking them for ends in themselves.

Judging by the past three years, the usual Labor trick when stuck in this impasse is to attack the Greens. And whaddaya know, Paul Howes laid into the Tasmanian Greens, part of the Labor-Green coalition, ahead of the Giddings government’s desperate attempt to distance itself from it. Howes is pursuing the line that Labor and the Greens share “no values”, which will be news to those who switch their votes back and forth between two parties that support collective bargaining, public education and health, environmentalism, and the rest. It’s particularly funny coming from an ex-teen Trotskyite, risen through the bruvvers, who now counts Planet Janet Albrechtsen and Michael “Wormhole” Kroger as friends.

The approach — favoured also by Troy “Boy” Bramston, the world’s only Gough Whitlam scholar who would have voted for Arthur Calwell — didn’t work in Melbourne this time round, and it won’t work in Tassie, either. It gains no votes from Libs and rusts a section of the wavering Labor/Greens votes onto the Greens. The danger for Labor in Tasmania is that the coming Lib landslide will be at its expense, leaving the Greens with their quota, and producing for example a Lib/Lab/Green result of, say, 14/5/6 seats — at which point the Greens become the official opposition, a win from a loss.

Labor has a bit of time on its hands. It has gained the great good fortune of a conservative government that won by promising to implement the program of a Labor government, and is now going in six directions at once trying to reconcile its blank-cheque promises. It is led by a man whose temperament it does not trust, and whose lasting achievement may be conflict with Indonesia. Even its culture wars are now being imported on the imperial preference system, shipped straight from Blighty, with a union jack stamp on the side.

Should its response to this gift be to once again swing its guns ’round on the Greens, then people will know it does not mean to offer a serious alternative, and the Abbott government’s meat puppets will get a chance to come to life.

22 thoughts on “Rundle: the education puppet show, with Labor scared in the wings”

Well, firing off in all directions here and rightly so. As an ex-Labour now Greens voter, I continue to look on with dismay at what has become of the Labour Party – I have no idea what it stands for anymore and as you say, it doesn’t seem to care either – as for Paul Howes, to me he represents all that is wrong with Labour – taking pot shots at the Greens will only show up their own policy vacuum – even if you don’t like the Greens, at least you know what they stand for.
As for Pyne and Education, all I can do is shake my head in dismay.

There is much to be concerned about where the ALP is concerned. It has been high jacked by the likes of Howes (Shorten?) as a vehicle for their own progression rather than a means to advance a progressive political agenda. The Greens on the other hand, do not have to concern themselves with the practicalities of government and are free to float progressive ideas without the responsibility of actually having to make it work and good on them as it adds a further dimension to the political discourse. The other side of politics are reasonably honest about what they stand for or to be more precise, what they do not stand for. The interests they represent are also quite transparent and their support more reliable and enduring. They also know how to effectively prepare the ground, in a political sense, to maximise their opportunities to be in control. Mr Pyne’s approach to the education curriculum is an example of this and the political axiom of don’t give the suckers an even break. They are quite clear about their purpose, the gaining and use of power to promote their supporters’ interests. To the winner the spoils go and damn the rest.

Re Howes: he should stand for a seat in federal parliament rather than call the shots and critique from the sidelines.

Many of us haven’t forgotten that Howes & Shorten, along with some of their mates, such as Arbib, Bitar etc, began the destruction of the ALP by culling Rudd. This helped mould it into the nondescript gaggle it is today, devoid of courageous policy and ideals. Shorten is not the answer to their problems.

The sooner a demolition order is slapped on the Sussex St Lubyanka, preferably with the doors welded shut with the parasites indoors prior to detonation, the sooner the Oz body politic may emerge from this dark night.

sometimes I think the greens ought to think about changing their name to reflect the fact that they are no longer a fringe party only concerned about environmental issues. But then I realise that it won’t be long before green credentials are an asset to the voting public who may well be more concerned about food, water and air security than cultural wars. Much bigger picture stuff indeed. Disclaimer: greens member

Yet another anti-Labor rant, Guy. It is becoming boring!
If the Greens are the answer, what is the question? They went backwards, big time, at the last federal election, so I can’t see what you are on about.
We are four months into this government and already Labor is no good. Why don’t you have something useful to say – like what a disaster this LNP government is, and how Labor is the only one who can save us from this rabble.
Unless you are talking about a Green dictatorship, with the rulers only gaining around 10% of the vote, they are irrelevant!!!!!

CML, it may be wishful thinking to call the Greens irrelevant. I am one of many ex-Labor voters who have switched to the Greens, and I will stay there unless and until Labor retrieves some credibility and integrity. I am not convinced that a Labor government would be much improvement on the LNP right now, certainly without having to keep the support of the Greens.

I agree that Guy is taking pot shots in all directions without seeing much good anywhere.
Labor are disappointing at the moment and need to get cracking quickly while the LNP are such a shambles.
It is a great pity there is so much ill-feeling between Labor and the Greens, when the Vote Compass clearly showed they are in the same quadrant with voters and should thus be firm allies against the anti-social LNP.
Christine Milne carries most of the responsibility for the poor relationship in my book, with her pig-headed aversion to proper cooperation and compromise to achieve reasonable progress on the big economic and environmental issues.

But it is interesting how closely UK and Australian education policy seem to be tracking. The UK Coalition recently announced that it would remove caps on higher education enrolments, which Australia did in 2009, and the extension of the demand driven system to private providers, which Australia may do later this year.

To those offended by criticism of Labor :-
What sort of government is one by default? Other than “The lesser of two evils”?
A game of heads or tails, using the one coin.
We deserve better.
Labor has to lift it’s game and change it’s head/mind-set – to win on merit.

The Labor Party are a long way from an election and the government is busy alienating large numbers of people without any action required. Christopher Pyne looks to be gift that keeps on giving. At this point in the cycle large numbers of people who voted for the Government are saying What the….? Unfortunately It is not in the electoral interest of the Opposition to stop the stupidity unless Tony Abbott threatens to start a war with Indonesia. He did write Battlelines and talk of a war against people smugglers and has a belligerent temperament so on that point I join Guy. Not to mention Cory Bernardi’s call for a cultural Revolution. A lot of war talk.

Indeed, the tactics of the last few federal wins from opposition have been to spend most of the time attacking the government for its mistakes and proposing only the vaguest improvements a couple of months out from the election. However, that leaves the incoming government without a strong policy, firm direction or solid support from the electorate. Government turns into establishing a lot of inquiries, decisions on the strength of personalities rather than commitment, and then on the basis of opinion polling.

Far better in my view to spend the time in opposition to agree on a long term and deep vision for the country, base a program on that, and then build community support for the new vision, program and policies.

@ Aphra – In order to govern, a political party needs somewhere around 50% of the vote, which usually translates in to a majority of seats in the HOR. Sure the Greens can make bloody pests of themselves in the Senate, currently voting with the LNP to raise the debt ceiling and proposing to support them on the outrageous paid parental scheme. Only for the wealthy, of course!
Now what was that about Labor being the same as the LNP, and moving to the ‘right’, according to some posters above? Green supporters need to take a good long look at their ‘wonderful’ party. They are no different from all the others – just more opportunistic.

@ Tom Jones – I think you are absolutely correct. Labor don’t have to do anything right now. The government is doing a good job of going down the plughole all by its self!! Hope it continues for another 2+ years, and we get rid of these ratbags in 2016. The Labor Party may not be perfect, but the’re a damn site better than this lot.

Another ex-ALP now Green voter for the past 15 years. There is indeed scant difference between LNP and ALP on most stuff. If optional preference were to be instituted everywhere, it will make for an interesting future for the ALP as Nat voters have been deeply programmed to automatically preference the Libs (what a grotesque misnomer!)and Greens’ voters’ inclination to automatically preference ALP may well fade away.

Being silent while the likes of Morrison and Pyne wreck the joint may have worked during the times of a balanced press. Today it has the look of simple absence. Looks like the pattern set during the Gillard years of “doing policy work behind closed doors” and leaving the “politicking” to the LNP is now continuing into the Shorten era.

@ pritu – IMO,preferential voting in federal elections won’t change, because it is far too valuable to the two major parties. While the last hung parliament was an aberration, most times the system works well to give a clear winner in government, thereby enabling the parliament to function. Let’s face it, the Greens would be stuffed without preferences from Labor voters, especially in the Senate. Now there just needs to be some order brought back into the upper house, so that these micro parties can’t game the system.
Also, I would have thought it was natural for any conservative voter to preference another party with similar ideology – Liberal to Nation, or the opposite. I am intrigued by who you think the Greens voter will preference in the future? If it is anyone other than Labor, or a left leaning independent, then said voters are a bunch of hypocrites. Mind you, this sucking up to the present LNP government by the Greens in the Senate looks awfully like that anyway.
The only way to ensure stability, IMO, is for previous Labor voters, now Greens, to get involved in the Labor Party and bring about change from within that organisation. I do not foresee a majority Green parliament ever in this country, so that leaves the Coalition to do an awful lot of damage in the meantime. Their track record since September 7 should alert anyone with half a brain, where the consequences of that scenario might lead us.

I don’t have any confidence in Shorten. I don’t think Labor have learned from their mistakes. I’m angry with them because their dysfunctional behavior is in large part why we have a horrible government in power today.

I’m now 52, and am ashamed to admit that I found out about the Myall Lakes massacre by reading Bill Bryson’s book on his travels through Australia, some 20 years after I left school.

How this was left off the school curriculum I’ll never understand. More than any other event in Australia’s past, this epitomises the relations between indigenous and white settlers, it epitomises the divide between what it meant to be white instead of black.